Interesting because, back on the 25th, I theorized that the hackers might have first shown a selection of illegally obtained emails to the BBC's Paul Hudson back in October and then--perhaps because he didn't write on them--hit the CRU server again for more of the good stuff. This new development would be consistent with that theory, which would be uncomfortable for Mr. Hudson, as it would mean he sat on illegally obtained emails without reporting them for a whole month.

Also--since the private CRU emails discuss Briffa's tree-ring proxies and Tijander and etc.--did the hackers delay their release in the hopes of harvesting more embarrassing material on this particular topic? That might put them in rather close proximity to Steve M's gang at CA, since he was the guy stirring the pot on these issues. In any case, it is clear that the emails were held back for weeks after being stolen so that their release would cause maximum damage to the Copenhagen climate conference. That's the takeaway message.

Saying they can't explain why the earth hasn't warmed up in the last 10 years is "harmless" or "innocent"?

Any scientist worth their weight NEVER gets rid of raw data in case results get skewed. Harmless or innocent?

A director does not resign if he has absolutely nothing to hide. Harmless or innocent?

If I were a climate change believer I might try to spin the emails so they don't sound so bad but there is just too much questionable content to overlook.

Lastly, Liberals have blindly believed one individual because he said there was torture going on when several high ranking generals said otherwise. Yet when many scientists are questioning global warming you don't want to listen to them. Instead you want to go ahead and spend billions of dollars on the hearsay of a few "chosen" scientists.

Why should I, you little bitch? Your last comment was confrontational and insulting, not to mention inaccurate, incomplete and unnuanced:

"Lastly, Liberals have blindly believed one individual because he said there was torture going on when several high ranking generals said otherwise. Yet when many scientists are questioning global warming you don't want to listen to them. Instead you want to go ahead and spend billions of dollars on the hearsay of a few "chosen" scientists."

Telling that most sceptics just completely ignore science and instead rely on criminally acquired e-mails that they don't actually understand. The only serious "sceptics" are people like Lomborg who, not being stupid, recognize climate change, but debate man's role and how to deal with it. We've moved on wingnuts. The polar ice cap will be gone in five years. The permafrost is thawing. This is happening in your own country, what the hell is wrong with you?

"The BBC got the emails a month before they went on the Russian server. But the Beeb, for whatever reason, sat on them..."So were the thieves hoping the BBC would do all the publicizing for them? There is a widespread obsession among the denialists with having the mainstream media report on the stolen emails. Even though Jim Prentice among others have pointed out that the emails do not affect the science.

Any scientist worth their weight NEVER gets rid of raw data in case results get skewed. Harmless or innocent?

Yes, the conspiracy started in the 1980s, which is when the data was dumped.... or maybe even before then, when people decided to use magnetic tape to store information. Magnetic tape doesn't have the longest lifespan (and even if they had kept them, they might not be able to be read). Obviously, the best method for storage or accessibility would have been stone tablets -- 2000 years. If they didn't want their results to be questioned, they should have gone Egyptian.

As for keeping raw data...what they did was compile information from other groups. Find out who the groups were and you've got your data back... unless they dumped their information as well. (Damn scientific community conspiracy.)

But the raw data in this situation isn't as important as the metholodogy -- what they did and why. Out of everything, this is probably the most accessible. Why not call out for that? It would tell you about as much as the raw data would about how they approach this problem.